O.j. Trial Distorts Process, Panel Says

March 21, 1995|By RICHARD STRADLING Daily Press

WILLIAMSBURG — People who think they are learning how the American judicial system works by watching the O.J. Simpson trial are getting a distorted view, a panel of lawyers and law professors at the College of William and Mary said Monday.

``I see it as a caricature almost of the criminal trial process,'' said defense attorney Sharon Coles-Stewart of Newport News. ``Everything has been done to the extreme.''

Coles-Stewart says she once had a death penalty case that lasted five days, but added that the typical murder trial is usually over in one. In the Simpson trial, she said, there appears to be no limits on time, money and witnesses.

Judge Lance Ito is partly responsible for all the time, said John Tucker, a retired trial attorney from Chicago who said he has never seen such a patient judge. While most judges would cut off an opening argument after 30 minutes, Tucker said, Ito set a seven-hour limit. ``This guy will let you argue for as long as you want to,'' he said.

Law professor James Moliterno said it seems as if Ito is aware the trial is on television and wants someone talking at all times, even if it's him.

Race and racism may be a factor in the outcome, but it won't be the only one, the lawyers agreed. Coles-Stewart, who is black, said black jurors don't always help black defendants and that women, whether black, white or Hispanic, might see the Simpson case different from men.

The panel agreed that the lawyers on both sides were doing a fine job and had made no obvious mistakes that would provide fodder for an appeal. Still, there was some second guessing.

Tucker said the prosecution seems to be going to great lengths to refute the defense's case in advance, at the risk of giving it some credibility.

``They are coming very dangerously close to overtrying this case,'' Tucker said. ``I think they may be giving weight to a red herring.''

The lawyers also questioned whether Simpson was well-served by having such a large team of lawyers. Tucker said he would do better to ``save some money for his children,'' while Moliterno said the defense team appears to lack cohesion.

``They need a single strategy to pursue, and they need a leader,'' Moliterno said.

The panel members disagreed over whether an acquittal of O.J. Simpson would indicate that money can buy a favorable verdict.

Coles-Stewart noted that heiress Patty Hearst was convicted and sent to prison for her role in a bank robbery and other crimes with the Symbionese Liberation Army in the 1970s. F. Lee Bailey, one of Simpson's attorneys, was on the Hearst defense team.

But Moliterno said an acquittal would strengthen people's perceptions about money and the legal system.

``It will further the view that many people have that if you have enough money you can get acquitted,'' he said. Marjoria Norton of Williamsburg, one of about 75 people attending the noontime discussion, said she is particularly interested in the fact that a woman, prosecutor Marcia Clark, is playing such a prominent role.

``I think she's doing a terrific job,'' she said.

Second-year law student Peter Owen, who said he has gone out of his way to avoid the trial on television and in the media, said he's concerned the trial is more about ``tricky lawyering'' than justice.

``I don't think it's real. I don't think it's real law,'' he said. ``And I don't think it's a good way for me to find out what happens.''

Moliterno acknowledged that the trial is widely considered a sordid affair and congratulated the audience Monday for being brave enough to demonstrate publicly that they are interested in it.

``There has been an awful lot of derision of people who are interested in the O.J. Simpson trial,'' he said.